Hindawi

Education Research International

Volume 2022, Article ID 2533413, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2533413

Review Article
A Literature Review of Digital Literacy over Two Decades

Danhua Peng and Zhonggen Yu

Faculty of Foreign Studies, Beijing Language and Culture University, 15 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Zhonggen Yu; [email protected]

Received 25 February 2022; Accepted 5 May 2022; Published 17 May 2022

Academic Editor: Ehsan Rezvani

Copyright © 2022 Danhua Peng and Zhonggen Yu. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced online learning to be a “new normal” during the past three years, which highly emphasizes
students’ improved digital literacy. This study aims to present a literature review of students’ digital literacy. Grounded on about
twenty journal articles and other related publications from the Web of Science Core Collection, this paper focused on the
definition of digital literacy; the factors affecting students’ digital literacy (age, gender, family socioeconomic status, and parent’s
education level); the relationship between students’ digital literacy and their self-control, technostress, and engagement; and the
three approaches to gauge the level of students’ digital literacy. The study also provided some advice for educators and poli-
cymakers. Finally, the limitations and implications were presented.

1. Introduction face-to-face learning, students regard online learning as less

interesting, and they are less motivated in the learning
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many sectors have process [8]. Moreover, some teachers are not that proficient
been terribly affected, including the education sector. Plenty in manipulating the digital application, leading to that both
of students had to leave their school and stay at home. The teachers and students cannot have a good experience [9].
educational sectors turned to online education immediately A study illustrated that from the online learners’ per-
to fight against the pandemic crisis [1]. Online learning is a spective, there were five aspects to be improved: teamwork,
mixture possessing both benefits and challenges. cognitive, operating, organizing, and emotional [10]. From
On the contrary, it enjoys many benefits. First and these five aspects, a potential impact on developing students’
foremost, it is flexible and time-saving [2]. It simplifies learning outcomes may be digital literacy. The students have
learning methods compared to traditional approaches and not fully prepared for the abrupt switch to online learning.
allows people to stay at home and get access to knowledge. With different levels of digital literacy, they may have various
Moreover, it is effective since students can repeatedly listen perceptions of online learning.
to the recorded sessions to help themselves have a good Recently, many studies have been done to investigate
grasp of the knowledge [3]. In addition, online learning also students’ digital literacy through quantitative methods
enjoys several characteristics like easy accessibility and [11–15], but a few studies have made a comprehensive re-
flexibility, which enables the students in rural or remote view of the literature related to students’ digital literacy. In
areas to study and allows students to plan their time to this way, readers can have a comprehensive understanding
complete their courses available online [4]. of digital literacy over two decades. In addition, some advice
On the contrary, it also has some challenges. Some is provided for educators and policymakers. In this study,
students are less satisfied with their courses since they could the author intends to give a literature review of digital lit-
not get enough feedback and valuable comments [5]. In eracy over two decades and make references for educators
addition, students could not be fully engaged in the class as a and policymakers. This paper is presented as follows: Section
result of the lack of human interaction [6, 7]. Compared with 2 outlines the materials and methods used in this study.
2 Education Research International

Section 3 provides the selected studies for the main citation RQ3: What is the relationship between students’ digital
and raises research questions, followed by results in Section literacy and their self-control, technostress, and
4. The paper then provides the discussion part in Section 5, engagement?
followed by a conclusion in Section 6. RQ4: How to gauge students’ digital literacy level?

2. Materials and Methods 4. Results

2.1. Identifying Research. This review is mainly to compre- 4.1. The Definition of Digital Literacy. Digital literacy is not a
hensively examine the past studies related to students’ digital new term. Many people have put forward their different
literacy and provides a reference for educators, policy- understandings of digital literacy in the past few years.
makers, and interested readers. To obtain this aim, we Among these various definitions of digital literacy, they can
adopted the framework of the Preferred Reporting Items for be roughly divided into two branches. On the one hand,
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [16]. people defined this term only focusing on technical skills. On
We adopted the following methods to locate and select the other hand, people proposed the definition of this term,
related studies for the main citation of this review. We paying much attention to the grasp of ideas.
retrieved the data by using a hand search method. We first The following two definitions of this term focus on
searched the studies through the online database Web of technical skills. Gilster proposed the term digital literacy in
Science (Core Collection). Then, with the guidance of the 1997, which referred to the competence to derive useful
following keywords, “digital literacy,” COVID-19, and information from various sources through the Internet [32].
student or students, 55 related studies were obtained. After Shortly after, the scholar Pool defined this term, which
that, we looked through the abstract of these studies. If the referred to the competence to adapt to new media [33]. He
abstract looked promising, then the item was obtained. also emphasized that the users’ experiences largely depended
Another complementary way was examining the references on their ability.
of selected papers closely and finding additional related The following two definitions of this term paid much
studies. attention to the grasp of ideas. In 2005, Martin offered his
version of the concept of digital literacy, which indicated that
people possessed the ability, attitude, and awareness to use
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. To get specific findings digital devices in a proper way to handle the digital resources
from high-quality literature, we employed the criteria of first and then create new knowledge and expressions to make
selecting previous relevant studies. (1) This study should be communications with others and make meaningful social
only retrieved from the literature written in English. But we actions [34].
did not limit the outlet of publication to a specific country or In 2017, Chan introduced another definition of this term,
area; (2) the study should illustrate and investigate students’ which referred to the ability to understand and use infor-
digital literacy; (3) unpublished books or reports were ex- mation in various formats, highlighting the role of critical
cluded. Grounded on the criteria, 20 publications were thinking rather than a simplistic grasp of Information and
found to be suitable for the main citations of the study Communication Technology (ICT) skills [35]. In a nutshell,
(Figure 1). The relevant studies were just selected within the some of the definitions only place emphasis on digital skills,
author’s ability. There may inevitably exist other related while others focus on the multidimensional concept. It is of
studies beyond the author’s ability. vital significance to increase both the basic digital skills and
those skills by which people understand and use the online
content.
3. Research Questions
After establishing the nature of the sample, we first retrieved
the papers from the corpus and then categorized them into 4.2. What Are the Factors Affecting Digital Literacy?
different themes. The concerned questions were proposed by When it comes to the factors affecting digital literacy, many
carefully reading and analyzing the literature, which types of research have been done from various dimensions
remained unsolved and urgent in digital literacy [17]. They such as gender, age major, and so on [10, 13, 14, 18]. The
were described in detail as follows (see Table 1). factors that affect students’ digital literacy may be caused by
Most of the studies adopted quantitative methods, in- the students themselves or other factors.
vestigating the factors affecting students’ digital literacy, the Previous studies have investigated whether age was an
relationship between students’ digital literacy and other important factor affecting students’ digital literacy, which led
factors, like students’ self-control. There exist some studies to inconsistent results. A study showed that age was not a
focusing on measuring students’ digital literacy. The fol- statistically significant factor affecting students’ digital lit-
lowing research questions were thus raised based on the eracy because, compared with experience, age was not that
previous studies, and they were discussed as follows: important in improving students’ digital literacy [14]. An-
other study also reported that age was an important factor of
RQ1: What is the definition of digital literacy? digital literacy, but it was not the only determinant of digital
RQ2: What are the factors affecting digital literacy? literacy and it was not that important to be taken into
Education Research International 3

Results identified from Web Results identified from

of Science (Core Collection) references of selected
(n =55) papers

Duplicate records removed

(n =2)
Records marked ineligible
(n =1)

Reports sought for retrieval

Results screened (n =18)
(n =52)

Results excluded Reports not retrieved

(n =1) (n =6)

Reports sought for retrieval Reports assessed for eligibility

(n =51) (n =12)

Results not retrieved

(n =3)
Full texts removed due
Reports assessed eligibility to various reasons
(n =48) (n=3)

Full texts were removed

due to various reasons
(n=37)

Studies included in the review

(n =20)

Figure 1: A flowchart of literature inclusion.

consideration in the process of making educational policies from lower-economic backgrounds to get access to modern
[36]. digital devices compared with students from wealthy fam-
Another factor affecting students’ digital literacy is ilies, which limited their potential to improve their digital
gender, which also leads to different research findings. In literacy.
some studies, girls enjoyed a higher level of digital literacy Parents’ education level is also an important factor af-
than boys [14, 19, 20]. Other results revealed that boys were fecting students’ digital literacy. Some studies showed that
more digitally literate than girls [21, 24]. However, some there was a positive relationship between students’ digital
studies demonstrated that there was no statistically signif- literacy and their parents’ education level [10, 39]. A possible
icant difference between gender and digital literacy [22, 23]. reason was that the parents who possessed a higher level of
A study illustrated that the only difference existed in the education can guide their children to use digital devices. This
grasp of general knowledge. The male students had a better finding was consistent with another study in which sec-
mastery of it than female ones, which may be caused by the ondary students’ digital literacy was affected by their fathers’
male students’ preferences for digital devices [12]. high education level [40]. In addition, 15-year-old students
Family socioeconomic status is also a vital factor af- who had a father with higher qualifications tend to out-
fecting students’ digital literacy. Previous studies revealed perform those students who had a father with lower edu-
that family socioeconomic status positively correlated with cational backgrounds [41].
students’ digital literacy [10, 37]. The students cherished a To sum up, there are various factors affecting students’
higher level of digital literacy in economically advantaged digital literacy. This paper illustrated 4 main factors, which
families with more books [22]. On the contrary, the students are students’ age, gender, family socioeconomic status, and
who were from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tended to parent’s education level. Researchers draw contrasting re-
have a lower level of digital literacy [10, 38]. A possible sults about whether students’ age and gender affect their
reason may lie in that it was a little bit difficult for students digital literacy. In addition, researchers are consistent that
4 Education Research International

Table 1: Authors, foci, and major findings of the included literature guiding this study.
Authors Foci Major findings
There is a statistically significant relationship between
Whether age, gender, and school degree significantly students’ digital literacy and their gender and school
Karagul et al. (2021)
influence students’ digital literacy degree, while age is not a statistically significant variable
[13]
The differences between students in terms of the study The study program specialization, level, and form of
Krelova et al. (2021)
specialization and form and level of study study significantly influence digital literacy [18]
There are no significant differences between students’
Monteiro and Leite The role of university students’ digital in enhancing
digital competencies and their academic year and age
(2021) personal and social skills
[14]
Economic status and parents’ level of education are
The relationship between digital literacy and the
positively correlated with digital literacy; school location
Tran et al. (2020) student’s socioeconomic status, family background,
does not correlate with students’ digital literacy but with
gender, and school location
their gender [10]
Girls outperform boys in technical ICT skills and ICT
Aesaert and van Braak The relationship between gender, socioeconomic status, competencies. The educational level of the mother is
(2015) and ICT competences positively related to students’ skills and competencies
[19]
Individual- and school-level variables affecting the ICT Female students outperform male students at the ICT
Kim et al. (2014)
literacy level of Korean elementary school students level [20]
Kaarakainen et al. The performance in the ICT skill test is divided by
Teachers’ and students’ ICT skills
(2018) gender and educational level [21]
Language integration and cultural capital, together with
Hatlevik and
The factors predicting students’ digital competence mastery orientation and academic aspirations did
Christophersen (2013)
predict digital competence [22]
There is no difference between students’ levels of ICT
The level of ICT skills among secondary school students
Umar and Jalil (2012) skills and gender. There exist differences in terms of ICT
in Malaysia
skills between urban and rural school students [23]
The ICT penetration rate of a country negatively
correlates with adolescents’ digital skills. Private or
The divide of self-reported digital skills among
Zhong (2011) public schools do not affect students’ digital skills. Self-
adolescents
reported digital skills are affected by home ICT access,
adolescents’ socioeconomic status, and gender [24]
The influence of digital literacy, parental mediation, and Digital literacy, parental mediation, and self-control
Purnama et al. (2021) self-control on online risk during the COVID-19 influence online risk. Parental mediation failed in
pandemic in Indonesia promoting students’ self-control [15]
The relationship between digital literacy, technology Technology dependence and digital literacy contribute
Essel et al. (2021) dependence, technostress, and academic achievement to technostress, and technostress negatively affects
and academic productivity academic achievement and academic productivity [11]
Self-directed learning and motivation mediate the
relationship between digital literacy and engagement,
The learners’ characteristics on their engagement in
Kara (2021) while perceived stress moderates the relationship of
online education during the COVID-19 pandemic
digital literacy with self-directed learning, but not with
motivation for learning [12]
Ana et al. (2020) Students’ perceptions toward e-learning usage E-learning positively affects students’ learning [25]
Digital education has experienced a strong increase,
The digitalization processes in education for creating a
Sa et al. (2021) reinforced by COVID-19, creating a digital presence in
sustainable digital society
everyday life [26]
A set of skills that should be expected to be possessed by
The digital skills young people and students should
Cicha et al. (2021) young people and students during their education are
achieve
proposed [27]
Positive student attitude and digital literacy upgrade
The effects of students’ attitude, self-efficacy, and digital
Prior et al. (2016) students’ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy positively affects peer
literacy on their online learning behavior
engagement and learning management systems [28]
Both employees’ self-efficacy and technology
The impact of computer self-efficacy and technology
Shu et al. (2011) dependence positively correlate with their computer-
dependence on computer-related technostress
related technostress [29]
Whether online learning perceptions and readiness Students’ computer self-efficacy and motivation for
Wei and Chou (2020) influence students’ online learning performance and learning exerted a direct, positive effect on their online
their course satisfaction discussion score and course satisfaction [30]
Present a conceptual framework of student engagement
Kahu (2013) Student engagement framework in higher education
in higher education [31]
Education Research International 5

family socioeconomic status and parents’ education level is advised for educators and policymakers to pay more at-
positively correlate with students’ digital literacy. This tention to making strategies to improve students’ digital
finding has wider implications for educators and policy- literacy during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and maxi-
makers. They are advised to keep students in mind, pay more mize their online learning outcomes.
attention to the students’ family socioeconomic status and
their parent’s education level, and use proper methods to
teach them. 4.4. How to Gauge Students’ Digital Literacy? After reviewing
the definitions of digital literacy, the factors affecting digital
literacy, and the relationship between students’ digital lit-
4.3. What Is the Relationship between Students’ Digital Lit- eracy and their self-control, technostress, and engagement,
eracy and Their Self-Control, Technostress, and Engagement? the approaches to gauge students’ digital literacy will be
When it comes to the aspects that digital literacy can affect, presented. Only students’ digital literacy is properly mea-
various kinds of research have been done. The factors can be sured, can teachers and other educators make the corre-
students’ self-control, technostress, engagement, and so on sponding method to teach them. Various kinds of
[11, 12, 15]. approaches to measure students’ digital literacy have been
Digital literacy plays an essential role in promoting proposed. But they can be roughly divided into three types.
students’ self-control. Studies have found that digital literacy The first way is to apply the existing digital literacy
enabled students to explore and use the information from scales. A study directly employed Ng’s nine-item scale to
the Internet with digital literacy skills, significantly mini- measure students’ digital literacy, containing technolog-
mizing online crime [15, 42, 43]. These studies were in ical, social-emotional, and cognitive constructs [11]. A
accordance with the following studies [44, 45], which in- study also applied the existing Ng’s digital literacy scale,
dicated that the children with low digital literacy tended to but the scale was adapted to their own language context
have a low self-control level and become suspects or victims [12]. A study gauged students’ digital literacy by incor-
online or offline. A possible reason may lie in that the porating nineteen questionnaires from Rodriguez-de-
students with low digital literacy had difficulty in finding, Dios et al. [15]. In a study, students’ digital literacy was
evaluating, and using online information. measured by using the existing questionnaire developed
Digital literacy is vital in reducing the technostress. A by the NAFR analytical center Russian Teachers’ Digital
study revealed that digital literacy had a statistically sig- Literacy [47]. The second method is to combine different
nificant negative effect on students’ technostress [11]. The existing digital literacy scales. Some scholars raised a
students who enjoyed a higher level of digital literacy can digital literacy scale, which was developed from DIG-
have lower technology-induced stress. This result can be ICOMP 2.0—a framework for developing and under-
explained by the fact that the students cherished enough standing digital competence in Europe—and added some
knowledge about the omnipresent ICTs. The students with a other elements from the authors’ understanding of digital
higher level of digital literacy tended to use ICTs to finish literacy [14]. The third method is to create a new digital
their homework confidently, which in turn overcome the literacy scale based on the scholars’ understanding of
sense of academic insecurity and technostress [28, 29]. digital literacy. Some scholars have created their own
Students’ digital literacy positively affects their engage- digital literacy scales to test students’ digital literacy
ment in learning. A study revealed that students’ digital [10, 18].
literacy directly affected their engagement [12]. This finding To sum up, there exist three approaches to gauge stu-
was congruent with the previous studies, which illustrated dents’ digital literacy. The first way is to apply the existing
that students’ digital literacy was an essential precondition digital literacy scales. The second way is to refine the existing
for online learning, implying that a higher level of digital digital literacy scales from the authors’ understanding of
literacy caused an increased level of students’ engagement digital literacy. The third way is to create a new digital lit-
[30, 46]. This finding was also consistent with the framework eracy scale. These three approaches enjoy equal importance,
of Kahu [31], which indicated that students’ digital literacy so people can employ one of them to test students’ digital
affected their engagement, mediated by psychosocial fac- literacy from their own purpose. It is advised that teachers,
tors—motivation and self-directed learning. This finding educators, and policymakers should use these ways to test
suggested that the increased students’ digital literacy can students’ digital literacy before making important decisions.
enhance students’ self-directed learning and motivation,
which in turn advanced their engagement in learning. 5. Discussion
In conclusion, students’ digital literacy significantly af-
fects their self-control, technostress, and engagement in This study discussed the definition of digital literacy. This
learning. The improved digital literacy can upgrade their term has been defined by many scholars. But their defini-
self-control to reduce their online crime. In addition, a tions can be roughly classified into two branches. One
higher level of digital literacy can significantly decrease their branch mainly focuses on technical skills that people can
technostress and enhance their learning experience. Fur- grasp. The other pays much attention to the mastery of ideas.
thermore, students’ improved digital literacy can dramati- Nowadays, we live in a digital world, with various kinds of
cally improve their engagement in learning. There are so information around us. It is of vital significance to upgrade
many benefits of enhancing students’ digital literacy. Thus, it both the basic digital skills and those skills by which people
6 Education Research International

can fully understand and wisely use online content. This can journal articles, investigated some aspects of digital literacy,
help people to manipulate online information and prevents containing the definition of digital literacy, the factors af-
them from being fooled or trapped in the digital world. fecting digital literacy, the relationship between students’
This study also illustrated many factors affecting digital digital literacy and their self-control, technostress, and en-
literacy: age, gender, family socioeconomic status, and gagement, and the approaches to gauge the level of students’
parent’s education level. There were no consistent findings digital literacy.
on whether age and gender influenced students’ digital The term digital literacy referred to not only the mastery
literacy [19, 21, 22]. A possible reason may be that compared of essential technical skills but also the wise use and complete
with the differences in students’ age and gender, their ex- understanding of online information. The study also pre-
perience using digital devices matters. However, consistent sented some factors affecting students’ digital literacy, in-
findings demonstrated that if the family enjoyed high so- cluding age, gender, family socioeconomic status, and
cioeconomic status or the parents had a high educational parent’s education level. No consistent findings revealed that
level, their children tended to process a high digital literacy students’ age and gender positively affected their digital
level [10, 22, 41]. This may be because their counterparts literacy. However, consistent results indicated that family
tended to be more capable of improving their children’s socioeconomic status and parents’ education level positively
digital literacy, compared with the families having low so- correlated with students’ digital literacy. Students’ digital
cioeconomic status and parents having a low educational literacy could affect students’ self-control, technostress, and
level. This phenomenon can lead to inequality since the engagement in learning. Students’ high level of digital lit-
students do not have equal access to improving their [48]. eracy could significantly enhance their self-control and
Thus, it is advisable for educators and policymakers to take engagement in learning and reduce their technostress in
action to reduce this phenomenon. class. The study also illustrated three ways of gauging stu-
In addition, this study investigated the relationship dents’ digital literacy levels, namely, using the existing digital
between students’ digital literacy and their self-control, literacy scales, refining existing digital literacy scales, and
technostress, and engagement. The level of students’ digital creating a new digital literacy scale.
literacy can positively affect their self-control, which can be
explained by the fact that students with a high digital literacy
level can understand and use online information wisely [45]. 6.2. Limitations. There are some limitations to this study.
In addition, students with a high digital literacy level can The major limitation of this study lies in the coverage of the
significantly decrease their technostress [28]. Furthermore, literature. Even though we retrieved the data from the ex-
improved digital literacy can substantially enhance students’ tensive database “Web of Science Core Collection,” it is
engagement in class. A possible reason may lie in that the inevitable to miss some findings due to the payroll and
students cherishing a high level of digital literacy do not have language limitation. In addition, we also excluded reports
to bother worrying about the technological problems, and and unpublished works excluded from this study. Mean-
they can be fully engaged in the class [30]. There exist so while, this study researched students’ digital literacy by
many benefits of upgrading students’ digital literacy, so it is simply investigating and analyzing previous studies. Even
suggested that teachers and relevant educators should make though this literature review can give educators, policy-
strategies to enhance students’ digital literacy levels and makers, and interested readers a comprehensive under-
maximize their learning outcomes in class. standing of students’ digital literacy, it lacks substantial
Finally, this study discussed three ways of gauging evidence to testify whether the factors statistically affect
students’ level of digital literacy. The first way is to apply the students’ digital literacy and whether students’ digital lit-
existing digital literacy scales, like Ng’s nine-item scale. The eracy is a significant variable in affecting students’ self-
second way is to refine existing digital literacy scales based control, technostress, and engagement. Thus, it is advised
on the authors’ understanding of digital literacy. The third that further studies adopt quantitative approaches or mixed
way is to create a new scale to test students’ digital literacy. methods to investigate students’ digital literacy.
These three ways of measuring students’ digital literacy are
equally important. But the scholars must understand the
rationale of the scale when applying them. If the scholar 6.3. Implications. This study only investigated whether
wants to refine the existing scales to test students’ digital students’ digital literacy is affected by their gender, age,
literacy, the scholar must pay attention to the different scales’ family socioeconomic status, and parent’s education level.
domains. If the scholar intends to create a new digital literacy There are still many other factors affecting their digital
scale, the reliability and validity of the scale should be literacy. Students’ digital literacy can vary if they have dif-
verified. ferent specializations, school locations, or school levels.
Further studies could investigate whether these factors
6. Conclusions significantly affect students’ digital literacy. In addition, this
study only examined the relationship between students’
6.1. Findings. This study has demonstrated a literature re- digital literacy and their self-control, technostress, and en-
view on students’ digital literacy, which provided precious gagement. The study of students’ cognitive loads, motiva-
references for parents, educators, and policymakers. This tion, self-efficacy, and learning outcomes also has gained
study, founded on about twenty related publications and popularity recently [49, 50]. Thus, it is suggested that further
Education Research International 7

studies can illustrate the relationship between students’ engagement and interactions,” Science & Education, vol. 31,
digital literacy and these aspects. no. 1, pp. 93–122, 2022.
Besides, this study only included three ways to measure [7] R. Tulaskar and M. Turunen, “What students want? Experi-
students’ digital literacy without developing a new approach. ences, challenges, and engagement during emergency remote
Future studies can adopt the existing scales or refine them. It learning amidst COVID-19 crisis,” Education and Informa-
is also advisable for scholars to develop new scales to tion Technologies, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 551–587, 2022.
[8] A. Stevanovic, R. Bozic, and S. Radovic, “Higher education
measure students’ digital literacy based on their under-
students’ experiences and opinion about distance learning
standing of digital literacy. What should be pointed out is
during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Journal of Computer
that the reliability and validity of the scales should be verified Assisted Learning, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1682–1693, 2021.
when creating a new scale. In this way, digital literacy scales [9] M. Dorfsman and G. Horenczyk, “The coping of academic
can be diversified. In addition, scholars are also encouraged staff with an extreme situation: the transition from conven-
to develop scales to gauge teachers’ digital literacy since it is tional teaching to online teaching,” Education and Informa-
not only students’ digital literacy but also teachers’ digital tion Technologies, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 267–289, 2022.
literacy that can affect students’ online learning experience [10] T. Tran, M. T. Ho, T. H. Pham et al., “How digital natives learn
[47]. and thrive in the digital age: evidence from an emerging
Furthermore, this study only examined students’ digital economy,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 9, Article ID 3819, 2020.
literacy. In the process of online education, both students’ [11] H. B. Essel, D. Vlachopoulos, A. Tachie-Menson,
and teachers’ digital literacy may play an important role in E. E. Johnson, and A. K. Ebeheakey, “Technology-induced
enhancing students’ learning outcomes. Further studies stress, sociodemographic factors, and association with aca-
could shed light on the factors affecting teachers’ digital demic achievement and productivity in Ghanaian higher
literacy, the relationship between teachers’ digital literacy education during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Information,
vol. 12, Article ID 497, 12 pages, 2021.
and students’ learning motivation, outcomes, and the re-
[12] M. Kara, “Revisiting online learner engagement: exploring the
lationship between teachers’ digital literacy and their in-
role of learner characteristics in an emergency period,”
teraction with students in class. It would be greatly Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 54,
appreciated if the scholars and other readers could offer no. sup1, pp. S236–S252, 2021.
more findings to extend and diversify this result. [13] B. Inan Karagul, M. Seker, and C. Aykut, “Investigating
students’ digital literacy levels during online education due to
Data Availability COVID-19 pandemic,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 21, Article
ID 11878, 2021.
All data and materials are available from the corresponding [14] A. R. Monteiro and C. Leite, “Digital literacies in higher
author upon request. education: skills, uses, opportunities and obstacles to digital
transformation,” Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED),
vol. 21, no. 65, 2021.
Conflicts of Interest [15] I. Rodrı́guez-de-Dios, J. M. van Oosten, and J. J. Igartua, “A
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. study of the relationship between parental mediation and
adolescents’ digital skills, online risks and online opportu-
nities,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 82, pp. 186–198,
References 2021.
[16] M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt et al., “The prisma
[1] R. M. Viner, S. J. Russell, H. Croker et al., “School closure and
2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic
management practices during coronavirus outbreaks in-
reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021.
cluding COVID-19: a rapid systematic review,” The Lancet
[17] Z. G. Yu, “Blended learning over two decades,” International
Child & Adolescent Health, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 397–404, 2020.
Journal of Information and Communication Technology Ed-
[2] S. Khan, M. E. Kambris, and H. Alfalahi, “Perspectives of
university students and Faculty on remote education expe- ucation, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1–19, 2015.
riences during COVID-19-a qualitative study,” Education and [18] K. K. Krelova, K. Berkova, P. Krpalek, and A. Kubisova,
Information Technologies, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 4141–4169, 2021. “Attitudes of Czech college students toward digital literacy
[3] H. K. Evans, “An experimental investigation of videotaped and their technical aids in times of COVID-19,” International
lectures in online courses,” TechTrends, vol. 58, no. 3, Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), vol. 11, no. 4,
pp. 63–70, 2014. pp. 130–147, 2021.
[4] D. Fonseca, F. J. Garcia-Penalvo, and J. D. Camba, “New [19] K. Aesaert and J. van Braak, “Gender and socioeconomic
methods and technologies for enhancing usability and ac- related differences in performance based ICT competences,”
cessibility of educational data,” Universal Access in the In- Computers & Education, vol. 84, pp. 8–25, 2015.
formation Society, pp. 1–7, 2020. [20] H. S. Kim, H. J. Kil, and A. Shin, “An analysis of variables
[5] P. Warfvinge, J. Lofgreen, K. Andersson, T. Roxa, and affecting the ICT literacy level of Korean elementary school
C. Akerman, “The rapid transition from campus to online students,” Computers & Education, vol. 77, pp. 29–38, 2014.
teaching - How are students’ perception of learning experi- [21] M. T. Kaarakainen, O. Kivinen, and T. Vainio, “Performance-
ences affected?” European Journal of Engineering Education, based testing for ICT skills assessing: a case study of students
vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 211–229, 2021. and teachers’ ICT skills in Finnish schools,” Universal Access
[6] K. Salta, K. Paschalidou, M. Tsetseri, and D. Koulougliotis, in the Information Society, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 349–360, 2018.
“Shift from a traditional to a distance learning environment [22] O. E. Hatlevik and K. A. Christophersen, “Digital competence
during the COVID-19 pandemic university students’ at the beginning of upper secondary school: identifying
8 Education Research International

factors explaining digital inclusion,” Computers & Education, [39] A. M. Diogo, P. Silva, and J. Viana, “Children’s use of ICT,
vol. 63, pp. 240–247, 2013. family mediation, and social inequalities,” Issues in Educa-
[23] I. N. Umar and N. A. Jalil, “ICT skills, practices and barriers of tional Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 61–76, 2018.
its use among secondary school students,” in Proceedings of [40] S. Foo, S. Majid, I. Azura Mokhtar et al., “Information literacy
the Paper presented at the 4th World Conference on Educa- skills of secondary school students in Singapore,” Aslib
tional Sciences (WCES), Univ Barcelona, Barcelona, SPAIN, Journal of Information Management, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 54–76,
February 02-05 2012. 2014.
[24] Z. J. Zhong, “From access to usage: the divide of self-reported [41] F. Siddiq, P. Gochyyev, and M. Wilson, “Learning in digital
digital skills among adolescents,” Computers & Education, networks - ict literacy: a novel assessment of students’ 21st
vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 736–746, 2011. century skills,” Computers & Education, vol. 109, pp. 11–37,
[25] A. Ana, A. D. Minghat, P. Purnawarman et al., “Students’ 2017.
perceptions of the twists and turns of E-learning in the midst [42] A. Cosma, S. D. Walsh, K. L. Chester et al., “Bullying vic-
of the COVID 19 outbreak,” Revista Romaneasca Pentru timization: time trends and the overlap between traditional
Educatie Multidimensionala, vol. 12, no. 1Sup2, pp. 15–26, and cyberbullying across countries in Europe and north
2020. America,” International Journal of Public Health, vol. 65,
[26] M. J. Sa, A. I. Santos, S. Serpa, and C. Miguel Ferreira, no. 1, pp. 75–85, 2020.
“Digitainability-digital competences post-COVID-19 for a [43] B. Keles, N. McCrae, and A. Grealish, “A systematic review:
the influence of social media on depression, anxiety and
sustainable society,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 17, Article ID
psychological distress in adolescents,” International Journal of
9564, 2021.
Adolescence and Youth, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 79–93, 2020.
[27] K. Cicha, P. Rutecka, M. Rizun, and A. Strzelecki, “Digital and
[44] G. E. Higgins, S. E. Wolfe, and C. D. Marcum, “Digital piracy:
media literacies in the polish education system-pre- and post-
an examination of three measurements of self-control,” De-
COVID-19 perspective,” Education Sciences, vol. 11, no. 9,
viant Behavior, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 440–460, 2008.
Article ID 532, 2021. [45] B. Nodeland and R. Morris, “A test of social learning theory
[28] D. D. Prior, J. Mazanov, D. Meacheam, G. Heaslip, and and self-control on cyber offending,” Deviant Behavior,
J. Hanson, “Attitude, digital literacy and self efficacy: Flow-on vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 41–56, 2020.
effects for online learning behavior,” The Internet and Higher [46] H. Ilgaz and Y. Gulbahar, “A snapshot of online learners:
Education, vol. 29, pp. 91–97, 2016. E-readiness, E-satisfaction and expectations,” International
[29] Q. Shu, Q. Tu, and K. L. Wang, “The impact of computer self- Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 16,
efficacy and technology dependence on computer-related no. 2, pp. 171–187, 2015.
technostress: a social cognitive theory perspective,” Interna- [47] M. A. Sorochinsky, “Digital competence of teachers and
tional Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 27, no. 10, students in yakutia: problems and prospects of E-learning
pp. 923–939, 2011. during the pandemic,” Educação, vol. 46, no. 1, 2021.
[30] H. C. Wei and C. Chou, “Online learning performance a [48] L. Robinson, S. R. Cotten, H. Ono et al., “Digital inequalities
satisfaction: do perceptions and readiness matter?” Distance and why they matter,” Information, Communication & So-
Education, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 48–69, 2020. ciety, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 569–582, 2015.
[31] E. R. Kahu, “Framing student engagement in higher educa- [49] Y. Wang, L. H. Yu, and Z. G. Yu, “An extended cctalk
tion,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 758–773, technology acceptance model in EFL education,” Education
2013. and Information Technologies, 2022.
[32] M. Spante, S. S. Hashemi, M. Lundin, and A. Algers, “Digital [50] Z. G. Yu, “A meta-analysis and bibliographic review of the
competence and digital literacy in higher education research: effect of nine factors on online learning outcomes across the
systematic review of concept use,” Cogent Education, vol. 5, world,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 27,
no. 1, Article ID 1519143, 2018. no. 2, pp. 2457–2482, 2021.
[33] C. R. Pool, “A new digital literacy: a conversation with Paul
gilster,” Educ. Leadersh, vol. 55, pp. 6–11, 1997.
[34] A. Martin, “A European framework for digital literacy,”
Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, vol. 1, pp. 151–161, 2006.
[35] B. S. K. Chan, D. Churchill, and T. K. F. Chiu, “Digital literacy
learning in higher education through digital storytelling
approach,” Journal of International Education Research,
vol. 13, pp. 1–16, 2017.
[36] A. Nasah, B. DaCosta, C. Kinsell, and S. Seok, “The digital
literacy debate: an investigation of digital propensity and
information and communication technology,” Educational
Technology Research & Development, vol. 58, no. 5,
pp. 531–555, 2010.
[37] O. E. Hatlevik, I. Throndsen, M. Loi, and
G. B. Gudmundsdottir, “Students’ ICT self-efficacy and
computer and information literacy: determinants and rela-
tionships,” Computers & Education, vol. 118, pp. 107–119,
2018.
[38] G. Mascheroni and K. Olafsson, “The mobile internet: access,
use, opportunities and divides among European children,”
New Media & Society, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1657–1679, 2016.